Economy- about to really hit the fan?

[Big Bean]

It's probable that bloomis is a total ***.

------------------

eat your vegetables

[forresthump2]

"But some people have the moxie to

stand up to you and your kind and that just drives you nuts. Fine."

Hee-hee-hee. No most people who work for my production company are independent contractors and the more they lay down for me the more it drives my nuts and the more I pay them.

My workers have more entreprenurial spirit and drive than any union workers. I don't have any full-time employees because it costs too much with all the Gov paperwork, taxes and retirement plan regulations. I have nothing against giving employees an ownership pertentage for our productions. That's the real American Way. Everyone wins that way.

Companies today know that doing this and treating employees well comes back to benefit all. The old Lenin, Troksy and Marxist ways are out the door, but MD still preaches them up like they're something new. LOL

Big Bum, Well we're still in the Slick Willy recession. The phased in slow tax cuts and the Fed cuts are just starting to have an effect. Like in Q4/01 when GDP was revised up 1% to 2.7%.

That's another thing with the Libbies. They distort the timeframe of policy changes and ignore that good policy takes time.

The economy had just started pulling out of the Slowdown right before the election in '92. Too late for Bush SR against a marketing wiz like Slick & Carville.

Liberals are in a constant state of disillusionment from their leaders. They even think Slick actually did something. Just the biggest income tax hike on working Americans since WWII. Then the GOP took over the house in '94. LOL

No sense in listing that everything good came from GOP prezes Big Bum. Your too brainwashed to understand obviously. End of stagflation, tax cuts, end of cold war, 90s cap gain tax cut and welfare reform due to republican contol in house.

Look what W has done in just 1 1/2 years. Tax cut, education reform, trade authority. Look what Slick did in 8 years. anti-business Family Leave Act. That all.

Whoopie. And look what slick didn't do. Real crack down on Al Qaeda, Sec crackdown on accounting malfeasance and Wall Street Chicanery, a Reno defense department that went after white supremicists and Elian, and not foreign terrorists. And went after the companies in our mutual funds like Microsoft.

That's another thing where the Demons don't get it. 50% now are owners of companies in mutual funds and 401ks, stocks and such. You can be owners now through work or in the market. Yep the democrats are going down the tubes. They need to go back to the old days and JFK the tax cutter. They're out of step with the middle. hee-hee

------------------

Go Forth and Hump the World

[Big Bean]

Lots of good stuff there forest.

------------------

eat your vegetables

This message has been edited by Big Bean on 08-06-2002 at 11:59 PM

[forresthump2]

Bean say "Lots of good stuff there forest."

Thanks you Bean. I call you bean now but think I have gas.

Look MD. Big Bean now converted. You right. Grassroots politicing on a Klipsch board does work. Vote Mod GOP in Nov. They're in tune with America. LOL

------------------

Go Forth and Hump the World

This message has been edited by forresthump2 on 08-07-2002 at 12:17 AM

[forresthump2]

Bloomis look out. Denteen is setting you up. He sold his company to Big Business because he couldn't compete. Now he's a rich-enough-to-be-a-Demoncrat because he sitting on a nest egg.

What i want to know is when is he going to give most of that Wealth to the poor? Do that then we'll talk about you taking our money Denteen. LOL

------------------

Go Forth and Hump the World

[cybergeek]

"Government Intervention And Its Disadvantages

Should our economy be run by a doctrine that was made popular by a group of French writers called physiocrats in the mid-1700s? This doctrine is called laissez-faire and it literally

means to let or allow to do(The Family Education Network). It is a theory of economic policy which states that government generally should not interfere with decisions made in an open

competitive market. These decisions include policies such as setting prices and wages. According to the doctrine of laissez-faire, workers are most productive and a nation's economy

functions most efficiently when people can pursue their own economic interest freely. The economy of the United States is no where close to being a laissez-faire system. In fact,

government spending and intervention in the economic sector has ballooned. According to the Federal Money Retriever, in 1998 alone, the government spent over $37,733,526,000 in

agricultural commodities, loans, marketing, and stabilization. The role of government has grown to a point where the benefits of government intervention are far outweighed by the

negative effects on the economy as a whole.

One of the major areas in which the government intervenes is in the agricultural sector of the economy. The government has three ways it can intervene and help its producers. These

ways include price policies, direct payments, and input policies. Price policies have the largest effect on producers. Tariffs, quotas, and taxes are just a few examples of price policies.

While these policies bring revenue into the government, in the end they hurt consumers. Each of these policies raise the prices of both imported and native goods. They are designed to

help stabilize prices and give the native producers a chance to compete with foreign goods. Under the doctrine of laissez-faire, the government would not interfere with prices and the

native producers would be forced to lower their prices, giving the nation's citizens a better deal in the market.

The use of taxes is one of the government's favorite ways to make its presence known in the economy. While this method seems blatantly obvious, many of the ways the government

uses the money collected by taxation is not. Some of the money it takes is used to fund other programs designed to "protect" consumers and to "create" jobs. Because of the money

taken away from the consumer through taxes, there is less money movement in the economy. This money movement is what creates jobs in the economy. "So, each person's money

lost to taxes helps fail to create their part of a job" (Kaz).

Direct payments are another way in which the government attempts to help its producers. Deficiency payments, diversion payments, disaster payments, and marketing loans are all

types of direct payments. Deficiency payments are payments based on the difference between the legislatively set target price and the lower national average market price during a

specified time. Diversion payments are payments made to farmers who voluntarily reduce their planted acreage of a program crop and devote the land to a conservation use. Disaster

payments are payments made to a producer when a disaster, such as a flood or drought, occurs and the producer's crop is either destroyed or severely damaged. Marketing loans allow

producers to repay nonrecourse loans at less than the announced loan rates whenever the world price or loan repayment rate for the commodity is less than the loan rate(Arthur &

Mabbs-Zeno, 2).

There are many different types of input payments implemented by the government. They range from below-market grazing fees and below-cost rural electrification to fertilizer and

irrigation subsidies to loan interest rebates. These input policies are designed to give the nation's native producers an edge by making various commodities more accessible to them.

Many of these input payment tactics are implemented to lower costs and maximize output for producers. These policies help the producers, but the consumers feel the draw-backs. The

consumers are forced to pay for the policies.

In a sense, the way the government is involved in the agricultural sector is a necessity. If these procedures and policies were not in place, the native producers would quickly go

bankrupt. While the people are now forced to "pick up the bill" for these policies, it would be very difficult to completely dismantle the current system. If it were dismantled, the goods the

producer produces would come at a much higher price to consumers, and yet government spending in the sector would decline. Of course, through taxes, consumers had already been

paying to have lower priced goods.

The government not only intervenes in the agricultural sector of the economy, it also intervenes in the business sector. The ways it can do this are innumerable, but some of them are

strict safety and health regulations, tariffs, and subsidies and government loans (Ringer, 149-151). Politicians always try to make everyone "happy." Because of this, lobbying by special

interest groups normally brings about stringent safety and health regulations. In this sense, the government is allowing itself to be manipulated by people who feel others should go along

with their ideas.

The use of tariffs is another way that government intervenes in the business sector. They help inefficient domestic producers by forcing consumers to pay unnecessarily high prices for

imported goods. The use of tariffs forces people to pay higher prices for certain goods and thus resulting in less money the consumer has to spend on other goods and services. This

results in less employment in the industries that produce such goods and services. The hidden reality is that a job protected by a government tariff is at the expense of a worker in another

industry(Ringer, 150).

Subsidies and government loans are another method of intervention for the government. In this method, money is taken from efficient producers and workers to keep inefficient producers

in business. Consumers pay for this method in the form of high prices. "As Henry Hazlitt has noted, it is important that antiquated, inefficient companies die out so that new, efficient

companies can grow faster; i.e., so capital and labor will find their way into more modern industries" (Ringer, 151). A country cannot grow if modernization and technological advances

cannot be made because of an immobile work-force.

Small and big businesses are guilty of inviting government intervention in the free market. They continually ask the government to step in and "protect" them. Small businesses ask for

less regulation on small business and more regulation on big business. Fair-pricing laws are a way both large and small businesses keep the government involved and hurt the

consumer. These laws keep prices high and hurt efficient competitors.

Wage-and-price controls are another way government can intervene in the business sector of the economy. Of course, these controls never fully work It is impossible to put price

restrictions on every product and service that exists in an economy. "The result is that producers will produce fewer of those products that are restricted, thus people will have more

money available for other products, which in turns will cause the prices of the non-restricted products to rise faster than normal" (Ringer, 167). High wage levels are a compilation of

minimum-wage laws and laws which force employers to negotiate with unions. By simple laws of supply and demand, if wages are forced up, businesses hire less people, thus

increasing the unemployment level. Once again, government intervention has hurt those whom it was designed to protect.

Price-fixing is a policy designed to help the "poor" and "needy" in the economy. In this policy, the price of a product is "fixed," or set at a level below the equilibrium point, so as to allow

each consumer the ability to afford it. To be able to pull this off, the government must provide the producers with help in the form of subsidies in order for the producers to maintain the

supply. This method is very expensive, and there are many cheaper alternative ways to help the "poor." Cash allowances to the needy would be a much cheaper way than trying to fix

prices (Robbins, 112).

The negative effects of government intervention in the economic sector outweigh the benefits of policies and methods implemented to help the consumer. These policies are found in

both the agricultural and business sectors of the economy. On the agricultural side, these policies range from price policies to direct payments to input policies. On the business side, the

government can intervene by implementing strict safety and health regulations, tariffs, and subsidies and government loans. While all of this policies seem to have beneficial short-term

effects, they never have positive long-term effects. In the end, the government's spending and intervention in the economy is detrimental. So, should the government stay out of the

economy and let it be run by the doctrine of laissez-faire, or is government intervention necessary to the survival of the economy? Many would argue that some intervention is necessary,

but in a completely competitive market, there is no need for the government to intervene.

works cited:

Dommen, Arthur & Carl Mabbs-Zeno. 1989. Subsidy Equivalents: Yardsticks of Government Intervention in Agriculture for the GATT. United States Department of Agriculture:

Washington D.C.

Federal Money Retriever. 1998. U.S. Federal Funding Numbers/ By Subject Terms. "http://www.fedmoney.com/fs-subj2.html"

Kaz. 1998. How the Government Spending Creates Jobs.

"http://hotbot.lycos.com/director.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esmart%2Enet%2F%7Ekaz%2Fspending%2Ehtml%3Fpt&id=10&userid=4EvOxepkQhws&query=MT=government"

Ringer, Robert J. 1979. Restoring the American Dream. Harper & Row: New York.

Robbins, Lord. 1976. Political Economy: Past and Present. Columbia University Press: New York.

The Family Education Network. 2000. "Laissez-faire." "http://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CE029401.html"

So MD, your rational seems to be along the lines that, because of Liberals, our Gov is already screwing up the economy, so why shouldn't we just let them go even further toward socialism or even communism.

Thanks, though you chose to ignore the positives i pointed out for free trade, at least you tried to explain a few of your premises.

That companies will not pass on higher wages to us in higher prices is absurd. If Klipsch became unionized and had to pay $100 per speaker for labor now rather than $50 before, and tariffs were now $50 more on competing foreign speakers, you don't think it likely that klipsch would raise the speaker price by $50? Come on. LOL

You're talking about a huge systematic change across all industries that employ low skill workers. You don't address high skill Vs low skill jobs and incentives for workers to get more training and education. Your tariffs on low skill labor goods only encourage keeping our labor force more unskilled with artificial high wages for having less skill.

You can't write off inflation as simply some monetary phenomenon that only happens when venus and mars are out of allignment. LOL It has causes. Deglobe takes away the supply of resources and labor from the pool. When those are more scarce prices rise. I'd like to see your example of Deglobe causing lower prices.

We know its too much money chasing too few goods. Obviously globalization is deflationary. The cure is Americans getting more training so we have the good jobs and the developing countries have the low skill jobs where they do the most good.

We can't produce everything for the US and the world. Why not encourage policy where we produce the high ticket/high tech goods and services which also encourages our workforce to be higher skilled and higher tech? Don't you think your thinking is a step back if not a total reversal from this goal?

I think deregulation and globalization has created the best environment the American consumer has ever seen. We have more choice for phone service, long distance, tv, automobiles, power companies. Prices on most goods are going down. I just paid $2 for a 12-pack of Mountain Dew. Lowest price ever. Low inflation is best. Remember that all workers are also consumers. And now more than ever workers are also investors and owners. Do people realize that if they have any shares of stock or a mutual fund or 401k that they're also a shareholder and owner in a company? Do people even realize what they own these days?

We're in a transition from a country of economic isolation and low-skill jobs to one of global free trade and higher skilled labor with higher pay. Deglobalization is a step back not to mention how it would effect world tensions and transformations to democracy. Yes MD, consumers know your theories come with a high price. 94% ARE employed. Prices are going down for the consumer. You might have an audience if unemployment gets up to 30%, but you're doomed and you know it. You are preaching metaphysics.

------------------

live long & prosper

[cybergeek]

"As for skilled and unskilled - - it makes no difference. Sun Micro hires 20,000 programmers in India because the "supply" of skilled labor in programming is vastly greater in India than in the United States. Especially when you want to pay $40 a week for it."

Exactly. We get lower prices and an incentive for workers to better themselves into systems analysts.

"Lose the emotional content of the standard Liberal/Conservative dichotomy (which doesn't even exist in reality) and just do some analysis of the facts of what is going on."

Spin and degradation of opponent.

"It's hard to see how I am pinned as the "Devil" here for wanting a better standard of living for all Americans. It's odd - - - everyone is so emotionally charged about being able to call me a liberal, that they are all missing the primacy of the argument."

Well if we only had more specifics rather than this kind of bravado.

"Great - you and yours want a lower standard of living. Fine. You and yours want lower wages and lots of imported goods. Fine. But, I'm not going to suffer the loss of American soveriegn rights in order for you to have that wish."

More politicing & bravado. And your policies mean higher prices on the imports we love. I don't think I surrender my sovereign rights by getting a Denon receiver. If there weren't some quality and value, imports would not sell at any price. Imports don't have a patriotic buy-American value. Most Americans will always buy an American made product if equal price and quality. Many buy American for even less quality for the price. Imports don't have this going for them.

------------------

live long & prosper

[cybergeek]

"Anyway, I'm sorry you are so anti-patriotic and such an uncommitted American as to sell off our soveriegnty for a few pair of cheap Nikes and some Nag Champa incense. I'm sorry you believe that only the "smart" Americans who work 12 hours a day like you are worthy of your ....?....support? Or "tolerance"?"

Again, sell off our soveriegnty? We don't need no stinking WTO. The buck doesn't stop when we buy those Nikes. That means more income for that Korean worker & he can then better buy what we do best - High-tech products from us that are made with higher skilled, higher paying US jobs. What goes around comes around, but it can't go in the 1st place unless you prime the pump overseas.

A worker that works 12 hours a day doesn't need our support and has my respect. One that betters themselves through better training and education also.

Forcing higher wages into lower skill jobs, besides raising our prices, runs the risk of paying more to someone that doesn't want or need the money. Isn't that a decision for the individual? Whether they want to make more money. IOW, this could also be a ploy of the GOV to make workers more dependent on the Gov and not themselves.

Unmotivated workers or sloth is something I have no tolerance for. And they only require support. Support that comes from our pockets in higher prices, which MD tries so hard to trivialize and hide.

------------------

live long & prosper

[TBrennan]

Bloomis---You act like you're the only guy who ever hit a lick, get real. Hard work is no road to success, millions of Americans work hard and all they get for it is more hard work. A system that rewards only a few with success means that the majority must work hard and get little. A person working hard ought to at least make enough in wages to buy a house, a car and send his kids to college. These things should not be reserved for the "successful".

It's funny to me when Conservatives whine that "people don't know the value of work" but when all a person has to offer is the ability to work hard that same Conservative values that work very little. Who works harder than kids at MacDonalds? And what is the value of that hard work? Damn little.

[cybergeek]

"By your account, the "incentive" for accomplishment is always the threat of lower wages. Interesting. Now, where there are 100 programmers, there will be perhaps a dozen systems analysts. Where do the other 88 programmers work?"

In the new jobs created by exporting more high tech products to countries that now have higher incomes.

"In essence, your argument breaks down into a dishonor of honest labor. Maybe some people WANT to be train conductors or garbagemen and don't WANT to be systems analysts or Cubical Captains? Are they bad? Are they simply to be tossed to the wolves of globalism because their pursuit of happiness is found in digging a ditch or picking grapes?"

No they're not bad. That's what we need immigrants for also. We'll have many more high skill, high pay jobs available with more exports. They will soak up the current supply of labor. If someone wants to be a garbageman then they can accept the lower pay. That's their choice. Money's not everything. What makes the GOV the entity to decide what people want to do with their working lives? More dependency on the GOV, the worst run business in the universe? I think that's the true political goal here.

"This constant "intolerance" of whatever you deem substandard "motivation" is blinding you. There is always room for climbers -- we need all of them. But there are also girls in the flower shops, seamstresses, garbage collectors, bus drivers and all manner of honest laboring people who are happy to give their day's work and quite content with the job they do.

You seek to penalize them all with the lowest pay possible by threatening them all with cheap foriegn labor because they don't aspire to become systems analysts or globe-trotting financiers."

And these will mostly be replaced with machines and technology. You can't deny the trend to a service economy. And kids need these entry level jobs too.

"You are several others here are simply caught in a dogma preached by those who've taken over the controls and are selling you out cheaply at their gain. You can see it isn't working -- there are no results of all your "productivity" - just longer hours, more work and more debt."

Well like I said, i appreciate the lower prices that stretch the buck so much further. I work for myself. The only dogma i listen to is common sense. Yours is one of more Gov control, higher prices/inflation, and less world progress. Just because most of the politicians and world are following common sense doesn't mean its bad at face.

------------------

live long & prosper

[kenratboy]

WOW!

This topic is cookin'!!!

------------------

Receiver: Sony STR-DE675

CD player: Sony CDP-CX300

Turntable: Technics SL-J3 with Audio-Technica TR485U

Speakers: JBL HLS-610

Subwoofer: JBL 4648A-8

Sub amp: Parts Express 180 watt

Center/surrounds: Teac 3-way bookshelfs

Yes, it sucks, but better to come. KLIPSCH soon! My computer is better than my stereo!

For JBL related subjects and more fun, click: http://www.audioheritage.org

[cybergeek]

MD, where did I say that you said that? That's my opinion on how you explain away inflation. You don't understand inflation. You merely blurt out from some text book. And you count on the fact that we haven't had true inflation since the Carter years, which you so schemingly include in your real income chart. Take away the inflation years and see what you get for real income. Massive uptick in real income which only shows

how detrimental inflation can be, not that our pay system is broke.

Everyone can see how you skip over the relavent arguments and emphasize the negatives that support your own premise, or in most cases you try to divert from the issue. That's how a saleman sells a bad product/idea. That's an old Liberal trick that's now common knowledge and only makes you appear the loser.

Look where it got/gets Al Gore. LOL

I suggest you go back and read the counter arguments to your premise. Then actually and directly give reasonable replies. That alone should keep you busy for a few days. LOL

Even Forrest explained numerous times how higher wages raise the demand for money with more consumption. Moves more to M1 and the Fed must then move in to inject more into the system for liquidity. Then when we have to pay more money for certain goods and services, we don't have as much for others. Then jobs are lost. Stagflation.

More scarce resources raise the prices of goods and services throughout the system and raise our prices. And you're not raising productivity by regulating or cohercing higher wages. Still more inflation and stagflation.

You've got the stagflation spiral covered on all bases.

What are you a reincarnation of Billy Carter? LOL

You can't do a breakdown like this because either you can't, or it ruins your premise. Just trying to help you do real analysis. Not glamorized spin. This isn't suppose to be a word contest, no?

You and TB only accentuate the negatives to support your agendas. Everyone knows if you work harder and better yourself you get more pay. Any company that ignores this basic principle will go bust. You guys make it sound like the American worker is a slave. Such political BS, and the people know it.

Business owners takes risks with THEIR money. Don't knock it til you try it. Certain American workers' expectations are the problem. Too many expect to take no risk with their money and just walk into a comapany for a job with high pay as if its owed to them. You guys are so out of touch with reality. Must be that Liberal brainwashing. If you want to be wards of the state or the big unions then that's your right. But don't expect to take any money out of my pockets for such horse crap. You have a big fight in your future that you'll never win.

------------------

live long & prosper

This message has been edited by cybergeek on 08-07-2002 at 03:35 AM

[anarchist]

quote:

---

But there are also girls in the flower shops, seamstresses, garbage collectors, bus drivers and all manner of honest laboring people who are happy to give their day's work and quite content with the job they do. - mdeenan

---

Now if lil Jimmy wants to grow up to be a garbageman or a bus driver or any of a thousand other unskilled laborer jobs, Jimmy should be allowed to do so. Jimmy however should not think the rest of us should pay him $150K/year to do so however.

To propose we should increase Jimmy salary because he is 'happy' with that level of 'success' is pure folly. There will always be garbage collectors and there will always be someone who wants to be one but the pay will never be great. Why? Because I am not paying $500 a month to have my garbage hauled. A child could see the inflationary results of your proposals.

In fact, because you choose to post red herrings and histrionics, let me give you a real life example of the benefits of unions with automobiles and your minimum wage demands.

In the early 70's, a waitress would make approximately $15K - $18K. To purchase a good American car cost her appromately 1/5 to 1/6 of her salary. The minimum wage acts have brought the minimum wage for someone entering the waitressing profession approximately $15 - $18K. What? Well, gee Simple Simon, the result of those increases was fewer people eating out and tipping less. Those wonderful government requirements make up more of her core income but at the cost of the tips she made. She thanks you. But wait, it gets better. Government involvement and crys from unions have driven labor costs for manufacturing jobs much higher in the automobile industry. To buy a good American car now costs that waitress not 1/5 or 1/6 of her salary, but a minimum of 100% of her salary. She doubly thanks you now. Wait. She wants to buy a house someday. She will REALLY like your policies then.

Much like your deglobalization stance, you apparently want to create these economic policies in a vacuum without observing the most basic tenets of reality. They do contradict each other, fail to observe basic supply and demand rules, remove any incentive to achieve, much less excel, and are so simplified that only someone with the smallest grasp of economics and politics would believe they were workable.

Your SOL motive and concern for fellow Americans is honorable. The solutions (actually conjecture) you have offered are elementary at best. Focus on cost and self-determination rather than artificial supports and you may be able to see the light.

------------------

HT - Klipsch Synergy Premiere

Audio - Heresy, KG4

[Mikekid]

And STILL they ramble on.............

I'm right, your wrong. That means YOUR an idiot.

Thats ALL this whole book is about.

SHUT-UP

[forresthump2]

Thank you MD for allowing me to point out that your goal of higher income for workers is much more wisely accomplished not by your inflationary and demotivating ideas in artificial wage controls, but by decreasing and keeping down inflation. Funny that you don't address the flip-side but does a Liberal ever go to the reasonable and common sense solution in the first place? As my chart shows, LOWER INFLATION is causing REAL INCOMES to rise. All you do is make a case for lower inflation and keeping it down. he-he-he

Table 2. Earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private

nonfarm payrolls1/, seasonally adjusted

_________________________________________________________________________

/ /

/ /

/ Average hourly / Average weekly

/ earnings / earnings

/ /

Year /_____________________________/_____________________________

and / / / /

month / / / /

/ Current / Constant / Current / Constant

/ dollars / (1982) / dollars / (1982)

/ / dollars2/ / / dollars2/

/ / / /

_____________/______________/______________/______________/______________

/ / / /

2001: / / / /

June / $14.29 / $7.94 / $488.72 / $271.66

July / 14.33 / 7.99 / 490.09 / 273.34

Aug. / 14.38 / 8.02 / 490.36 / 273.49

Sept. / 14.43 / 8.01 / 492.06 / 273.06

Oct. / 14.46 / 8.06 / 491.64 / 273.89

Nov. / 14.52 / 8.10 / 495.13 / 276.15

Dec. / 14.56 / 8.14 / 496.50 / 277.68

2002: / / / /

Jan. / 14.59 / 8.14 / 497.52 / 277.63

Feb. / 14.62 / 8.14 / 500.00 / 278.40

Mar. / 14.65 / 8.13 / 501.03 / 278.04

Apr. / 14.68 / 8.10 / 502.06 / 277.08

May p / 14.70 / 8.12 / 502.74 / 277.60

June p / 14.76 / 8.14 / 506.27 / 279.24

_____________/______________/______________/______________/______________

------------------

Just like the Libbies to jump in and ruin a good trend.

And it only gets better unless the deadbeats sit even more on their cans. But the Libby goal is to make people more lazy and more dependent on them and their GOV.

Liberals want the economy to fail. It gives them more control and power. Don't trust them. They'll try to sell you more garbage like MD's here, then want to pay the garbageman more to clean it up. hee-hee-hee

Go Forth and Hump the World

This message has been edited by forresthump2 on 08-07-2002 at 11:32 AM

[Big Bean]

Hi Forrest - No, Big Bum is not converted. I was dead tired - went to bed. Don't you Senators ever sleep?

Yes - "Lots of good stuff there". The problem is that it doesn't work and I'm not going to beat a dead horse. Hell I voted for Reagans trickle down snake oil, tax cuts and smaller government. It all made sense but then I was just a kid. Reagan was just bouncing checks. It doesn't work. Capitalism without a strong moral underpinning threatens liberties, threatens the democracy. This is not Golden Rule bullshit, it's the real deal. It just will not work. People will turn against the wealth that oppresses. Wealth will become the enemy. Check out our history 1880-1930s. Forrest you may not be as wealthy as you think.

Hang in there MD.

------------------

eat your vegetables

This message has been edited by Big Bean on 08-07-2002 at 12:31 PM

[forresthump2]

Make no mistake. MD is a true card carrying Liberal Democrat who has never voted Repub in his life. He is guided by today's Modern Liberal like Slick Willy and Al Sore and Hilly. AND MD has the gall to use the Constitution to back his ideas for GOV control of our lives. To Liberals the Constitution is a living breathing document for the GOV benefit and not to we the people. That's why the Liberal judges try to use it to Legislate new law for more GOV control. Again dont forget this that came from the king of the Libbies and this thinking controls their every thought.

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people,

we should look to limit those guarantees." (President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993).

------------------

Go Forth and Hump the World

[cybergeek]

Forrest, Great chart. Guess we do need pictures to explain.

And you're right. They will manipulate the very figures they cause (the high inflation Carter years) to their own benefit. And use the timeframe that best works for their con job. MD has only proven that he can't use reasonable, well-balanced discussion tactics,

but only manipulation and spin. Guess he can say he's not a Liberal, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...LOL

I'm sure MD will say these figures are too short a time-frame and the Constant Dollars are in '82 (more reasonable for today) and don't show much hourly increase.

But it does show real income is not falling as he would

want his "audience" to think with his skewed chart. In fact it shows real income is now rising at an increasing rate.

The Liberals do want a return to the Carter years and high inflation. They think their dumb targets in the populace don't understand the disasterous effects of high inflation and only look at the dollar figure on their paychecks.

I agree. It is trend that will only snowball as the country's workers get more productive on merit and due to the increased competition that only makes us better,

and as prices fall relative to income due to free market forces.

What MD is saying is that we can't compete. We can and will. The GOV can't compete because its the worst business manager in the world. MD appears to me like the GOV. He doesn't understand competition. Must have been a book worm in school that hated the athletes that could compete. LOL

More Hands off policy in trade and global trade is best for all and both parties are embracing it wholeheartedly. MD has no audience in Washington nor much place else. Only amoung the far left whackos does he have any support. His argument is old hat, moot, and extinct. He'll be left behind along with Karl Marx and other Command Economy supporters.

------------------

live long & prosper

[anarchist]

mdeenan,

The post prior to this last one I have no issues with. I suspect we all agree with your observations. We differ on the cause and the course of action.

You want to 'limit' profits or steer the money artifically back to the workers. Of course, I am assuming because you have not provided any details on how you would force the wages to rise commensurately with prices. I suggest it can not be done without violating half a dozen laws of finance but, hey, I am willing to listen to your idea if you can provide some specifics.

The remainder of us look at this in real-world terms. You have pointed out why inflation is a bad thing. We look and see prices have risen due to more and more taxes and artificial wage hikes. You don't treat the symptom, you treat the disease.

I have read the Constitution recently and no where in there does it specify the purpose of the US is to advance the salaries of anyone. It does not guarantee anyone a free ride. It gives everyone the opportunity for self-determination. Further, it does specify rights not given specifically to the federal or state governments are reserved to the people - we are clearly in violation of the Constitution and government has forged far past their purpose. There has been a coup in this country and the populace is too stupid to realize it. Jefferson made mention of it back in 1824 or thereabouts.

Hell, maybe we are living in the Matrix.

------------------

HT - Klipsch Synergy Premiere

Audio - Heresy, KG4

[forresthump2]

Crash, take your time and run MD just threw in the towel. Now he'll ignore my valid chart and post and go off again with the idealogy.

This is pure BS "The GOVT is nothing more than US - OUR WILL

organized on OUR behalf to conduct the affairs of OUR State"

Bull$hit. That's the way its suppose to be but I didn't know MD was a mindreader too. LOL The Dem party comes before the people to the Liberal politicians and we know it. The Mod Dems don't have any choice if they want to win. They have to elect the New Socialist Democrats and they put the party before the country every time. They talk bad on the economy and only want Bigger Gov with more Control by them.

I don't have to hear the pundits say so. I use common sense and hear it every time I hear Tom or Dick or Al or anyone of them speak. They are in a game now of obstructing any economic progress. But they have to be subtle because they are Suppose to represent the people. Their idea of representing is to throw out a pork bone to their constituants while they grow their power.

Go to your Congress person web site and see how they crow about the pork money that they got for you. If anything positive can come of this, email your congress

and tell them to cut the Unconstitutional pork spending that is nothin but political paybacks that nonproductively line the pockets of the wealthy campaign contributors.

They have to listen to you by law. This a waste of time here. Email them and tell them to cut the pork. They're robbing us blind while they gain more money and power.

------------------

Go Forth and Hump the World